There is male and there is female, period.
-
37
-
Wildmild wrote:
trackfangirl wrote:
I don't know much about this topic, except that trans women were authorized to compete internationally in track from 2003 until Coe banned them in 2023. 20 years and I guess people thought they would be dominating. But not one trans woman has even become world class in those 20 years, none have ever won a track medal in world champs, Diamond leagues or Olympics. None have even been good enough to even make it on any teams at the world class level. And in 20 years only 1 trans women has even made it to the running Olympic trials and in 2020 they ran in the marathon trials in the US and was she close to making am Olympic Team, nope she finished 230th in almost a 3 hr marathon ()I've been saying this had never been about trans women because there are no world class trans women runners on earth and never have been. There is a 20 year time period to prove that. That has been a smoke screen and Seb Coe knows it. This has always been about DSD women (); they have been the ones who have been competing at the world class level and winning gold medals and breaking world distance records.Trans women have been the scapegoat because there is a lot of hate about them now so that Coe can stop DSD women like Christine Mboma, Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and others from winning gold medals. It is interesting that all of these DSD women are black and all from Africa............... Just saying!
There was a female tennis player, Renee Richards, I believe, who performed very well at the professional level until someone reported he was formerly a mediocre male pro. He played in the Billie Jean King era.
Are the DSD women mostly African? Or are DSD women about the same percentage in most ethnic groups?
It was never a secret that she had played as a male and she never played professionally prior to transitioning.
21 -
dullard wrote:
Rather than starting at a default of inclusion (women's categorry is a closed category so is by definition not inclusive) the onus is on trans activsts to prove that transwomen have no advantage in order to be included.
That's not how statistical analysis works. You cannot "prove" there is no difference between two groups of people. That's impossible by definition. (If a null hypothesis was not rejected, that "proves" nothing.)
That's why CAS, US federal courts, and all the other courts say you need to prove there is a difference in order to justify exclusion.
42 -
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Wildmild wrote:
There was a female tennis player, Renee Richards, I believe, who performed very well at the professional level until someone reported he was formerly a mediocre male pro. He played in the Billie Jean King era.
Are the DSD women mostly African? Or are DSD women about the same percentage in most ethnic groups?
It was never a secret that she had played as a male and she never played professionally prior to transitioning.
Not as a professional but she did play the US open as a man as an amateur. We aren't talking about some so-so player. We are talking about a really high level tennis player. If after transitioning, they kept the same relative tennis skill, I wouldn't be shocked to learn that is being a really good woman pro back then. Those fields in the 60s/70s were not drawn from a deep talent pool.
21 -
Ykdoe wrote:
The article is actually making a very good point. Most men who want to be women are not great athletes. I know there are exceptions. But most are not.
A 2009 study showed the *average* man is stronger than 99.9% of women. And in another study, the disparity in hand-grip strenght is so large that the 5th-percentile of men (as in, weaker than 95% of men) were stronger than 90% of *elite* females. So in many sports, if you're an average male with bare minimum training, you're already dominating female competition.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513809000397?via%3Dihub
103 -
Hardloper wrote:
Ykdoe wrote:
The article is actually making a very good point. Most men who want to be women are not great athletes. I know there are exceptions. But most are not.
A 2009 study showed the *average* man is stronger than 99.9% of women. And in another study, the disparity in hand-grip strenght is so large that the 5th-percentile of men (as in, weaker than 95% of men) were stronger than 90% of *elite* females. So in many sports, if you're an average male with bare minimum training, you're already dominating female competition.
Conditional probability is basic math. You (unlike Ykdoe) are conflating the probability distribution over a population with that over a specific subgroup, and that’s not even accounting for transition.
37 -
Ykdoe wrote:
The article is actually making a very good point. Most men who want to be women are not great athletes. I know there are exceptions. But most are not.
That is the point. Despite being uninterested, and untalented male athletes they suddenly become ranked female athletes.
33 -
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Wildmild wrote:
There was a female tennis player, Renee Richards, I believe, who performed very well at the professional level until someone reported he was formerly a mediocre male pro. He played in the Billie Jean King era.
Are the DSD women mostly African? Or are DSD women about the same percentage in most ethnic groups?
It was never a secret that she had played as a male and she never played professionally prior to transitioning.
Whilst it might be technically true that Richards "never played [tennis] professionally prior to" changing identity from Richard Raskin to Renee Richards, this framing obscures a great deal about Richards that is also true and is extremely relevant to both what Richards did and the broader topics under discusssion in this thread.
According to a Sports Illustrated article published in September 1976, just prior to "transitioning " to Renee Richards in 1972, Richard Raskin was good enough in men's tennis as to be "ranked sixth nationally in the men's 35-and-over division."
Also, whilst it's true that "it was never a secret that [Renee Richards] had played tennis as a male," and at a pretty high level too, it's also true that when Richards started playing women's tennis, Richards went to considerable lengths to try to keep both Richards' sex and previous identity as Richard Raskin a secret.
Richards was only "outed" in women's tennis because Richards' 6'2 height, exceptionally strong left-hand serve, and unusally powerful style of play drew attention - and some people who knew Richard Raskin from the men's tennis tour realized who the new stand-out player in women's tennis actually was. That solved the mystery of how such a top-notch competitor in women's tennis could have come seemingly out of nowhere and suddenly become such a dominant force in women's professional tennis in "her" 40s, an age when most female tennis players are no longer at the the top of their game. This is particularly true for female tennis players in their 40s who are biological parents like Richards was when Richards made such a big splash in women's tennis in the mid-1970s.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.73 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
dullard wrote:
Rather than starting at a default of inclusion (women's categorry is a closed category so is by definition not inclusive) the onus is on trans activsts to prove that transwomen have no advantage in order to be included.
That's not how statistical analysis works. You cannot "prove" there is no difference between two groups of people. That's impossible by definition. (If a null hypothesis was not rejected, that "proves" nothing.)
That's why CAS, US federal courts, and all the other courts say you need to prove there is a difference in order to justify exclusion.
Actually, the burden of proof should be on the men (transwomen) who claim they are similar enough to women that they should be allowed in women's sports.
53 -
OFOOS wrote:
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
That's not how statistical analysis works. You cannot "prove" there is no difference between two groups of people. That's impossible by definition. (If a null hypothesis was not rejected, that "proves" nothing.)
That's why CAS, US federal courts, and all the other courts say you need to prove there is a difference in order to justify exclusion.
Actually, the burden of proof should be on the men (transwomen) who claim they are similar enough to women that they should be allowed in women's sports.
Tell us how that can be "proved."
What tests can be conducted on what groups of people, and what results would "prove" that point?
34 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
translucent wrote:
Billie Jean King herself supported Richards in her lawsuit to compete against women professionally. She won that suit and competed for several more years.
Richards performed about as well against women in her 40s as she had against men in her 20s, suggesting that she did retain some advantage.
Richards transitioned in her thirties. She has said if she had done so in her early twenties no female competitor would have stood a chance against her.
It is bizarre that you refer to a man with feminine pronouns while arguing that men should be disallowed from competing in female-only divisions. I agree with disallowing men from competing as women: it's your cross-wired use of pronouns that is bizarre.
25 -
Nnkkkl wrote:
Who\'s John Galt? wrote:
I had an amazing conversation with Chatgpt about it. While I couldn't get it to admit that trans had an advantage over females, I could get it to admit that if there was an ingredient in food that caused illness or death as often as trans win races or break records, that ingredient could be considered a dangerous ingredient. Absolutely 100% true story...
List all the things that Chat GPT believes
Men can have babies
There is a gender pay gap and it is not linked to numbers of hours worked, danger associated with job, level of obsession to increase salary…
We live in a patriarchal society with systemic oppression
A woman could run faster than the winner of the men 100m at the Olympics…
…
Try to have it say otherwise.
It is frightening if Chat GPT "behaves" as you described.
31 -
Wise Old Man wrote:
mathematics wrote:
The science is unabiguous and the research is not limited, especially for how small of a population there is to sample. Anytime a study has been performed it has shown a retained advantage for males on HRT for any length of time, and the only viable way to exclude that advantage is pre-pubescent HRT.
You're kind of arguing a 'God-of-the-gaps' thing here.
Like sure, MTF has a retained advantage in strength, but what about running?
Ok, MTF are faster runners, but what about endurance running specifically?
Ok, they're faster endurace runners, but what about middle distance?
Ok, they're faster middle distance, but what about steeplechase?
Just the first 3 that come up on Pubmed:
Did you read study #3? The results are kind of amazing. Check out Figure 2.
"Results Participants were 26.2 years old (SD 5.5). Prior to gender affirming hormones, transwomen performed 31% more push-ups and 15% more sit-ups in 1 min and ran 1.5 miles 21% faster than their female counterparts. After 2 years of taking feminising hormones, the push-up and sit-up differences disappeared but transwomen were still 12% faster. Prior to gender affirming hormones, transmen performed 43% fewer push-ups and ran 1.5 miles 15% slower than their male counterparts. After 1 year of taking masculinising hormones, there was no longer a difference in push-ups or run times, and the number of sit-ups performed in 1 min by transmen exceeded the average performance of their male counterparts."
After a couple of years of hormone therapy, transmen OUTPERFORM males! Who would have expected that result?
As for the transwomen, there is a clear and marked decline in performance, with pushups and situps falling to or below the female baseline, but running staying above the female baseline. The caveats would be these are all adults well post puberty when they started hormones and the degree of testosterone suppression is not documented, but unlikely be close to the new WA standard for most of the participants. So to argue NO differences remain after hormones is not realistic, but to argue the magnitude of the difference, depending on the timing of the suppression and the degree of suppression, is not well established. Right?
The professor from UW was not arguing that there is no difference, just that the magnitude of the difference is not known depending on these factors and the data are scant and also there is a SEPARATE social justice argument, one that could be argued either way depending on your position. Even in the face of acknowledged physiological difference, some will decide that the social justice argument is more important and takes precedence, while others do not, or think the social justice argument goes against inclusion. These are the prevailing arguments on these LRC threads.
Bottom line, I do not think there are many on these threads are having their minds changed by anything anybody else has to say on the topic on LRC. I'd be interested in hearing from somebody who has changed their minds, and why.
So the take-away is that transwomen may likely lose in a push up contest after undergoing hormone therapy.
13 -
OFOOS wrote:
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
That's not how statistical analysis works. You cannot "prove" there is no difference between two groups of people. That's impossible by definition. (If a null hypothesis was not rejected, that "proves" nothing.)
That's why CAS, US federal courts, and all the other courts say you need to prove there is a difference in order to justify exclusion.
Actually, the burden of proof should be on the men (transwomen) who claim they are similar enough to women that they should be allowed in women's sports.
They are women, not men, for any purpose that matters (your personal opinion not being one of them), and they are not claiming “they are similar enough to women”, rather they and everyone else understands that trans women are different from cis women.
45 -
Anyone who believes the only advantage males have over females in sports is testosterone is too ignorant to engage in debate with.
52 -
I merely responded to the poster’s claims that Richards kept her transition a secret for a period of time and that she had played professionally as a male. I’ve never read that she lied to play in a WTA event and she didn’t play on the men’s tour.
You seem to be arguing against yourself by building up Richards’ ability as a guy. If you’re making the case that men have an advantage over women after transitioning, Richards not being much as a male player would strengthen your position.
There aren’t any studies, but I believe there could be 100s of male players that even after testosterone suppression, could dominate women’s tennis, but not a single one has shown up. Some of them probably sleep in their cars when traveling, but even though sweeping the majors would earn $10M, faking a transition is a bridge too far.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.33 -
Save your breath yo wrote:
Anyone who believes the only advantage males have over females in sports is testosterone is too ignorant to engage in debate with.
No idea why you are yelling that at me. I wasn’t even talking to you.
10 -
SayWhattttt? wrote:
There is male and there is female, period.
So you are saying there is male period?
31 -
Let it Rupp wrote:
Since transwomen and biological women have no difference in athletic ability, can someone explain how Lia Thomas went from the 462nd ranked male to the 1st ranked female in one season? That's a pretty amazing improvement, I wonder what she did to improve by that much?!
Hormone parameters not strict enough. Lower T levels and a longer time period are required to mitigate the effect of male puberty. (And imo--and perhaps not a popular one-- adult trans women athletes should have undergone sexual reassignment surgery.)
22
1 post was removed from this page.
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.